Talk:Japanese diaspora

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Japan (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 11:51, September 10, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Figures quoted in the side are wrong[edit]

In the source for the # Japanese people in the Philippines on the sidebar, the 220k figure is given for the number of *Filipinos* in Japan, not the number of *Japanese in Phillipines. I'll quote it here: "In his opening remarks, Charge d'Affaires and Consul General Sulpicio Confiado said the forum was part of the embassy's efforts to reach out to the 221,817 Filipinos living and working in Japan." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.65.206 (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move to Japanese diaspora without prejudice. See #Closing comments below. Duja 10:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


Ethnic JapaneseNikkei people — Current name violates WP:OR and WP:V (its unsourced and contrived), new name is established academically and used within the English language, despite beliefs of opposition. Evidence of common use is provided on talk page, and cites are provided in talk and article space. falsedef 03:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is there is one article named Japanese people and one article named Ethnic Japanese and both of those article names mean the same thing. Is it ok to put all of the stuff from Japanese people at the top of this article? If it's not ok then this can't stay the same... whatever the vote numbers are. 210.189.164.103 03:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move[edit]

  1. Support. I'll restate that I will support any precise and correct title for this page over the current title. The problem in a nutshell is that until Shinzo Abe, Junichiro Koizumi, and every other Japanese person in Japan isn't "ethnic Japanese", this is an unacceptably ambiguous title. The current title fails WP:PRECISION and I believe the proposed title passes muster for WP:UE. Dekimasu 14:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support — "Ethnic Japanese" implies that "Japanese people living in Japan" should be included, which is NOT the case for this article. Therefore "Ethnic Japanese" is a VERY BAD TITLE. I would support any move to Nikkei people, Nikkei Japanese people, Overseas Japanese (as in Overseas Chinese), Japanese expatriates, and Japanese emigrants. However, I am opposed to Japanese diaspora.--Endroit 17:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. What Endroit said - ditto. LordAmeth 12:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move[edit]

  1. oppose per the arguments made in the last move request that was only a few weeks ago. 205.157.110.11 03:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    Please provide your citations and proper definition if you wish to avoid breaking WP:V, as the previous arguments are not valid until verifiability is provided.falsedef 21:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    Cite..hmm, how about WP:UE? Nikkei is not English in the same sense that Ethnic Japanese and Japanese diaspora are in terms of conveying what the article is about. To apply the concept of WP:AMNESIA to naming conventions, I would say that a good article title is one that if a person forgot everything that they knew about the subject, they could still have an idea about what the article is about. Any "mildly" educated English speaker could look at the titles Ethnic Japanese and Japanese diaspora and get an idea that the article is about people of Japanese heritage that may not being located in Japan. No one, without any prior knowledge of the subject matter (in particular with a Japanese background) would have a clue what Nikkei people is about. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia aims for the common masses and the English version has to utilizing the most efficient english language title and Nikkei People is too technical and specialize of a title to work. 205.157.110.11 04:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, but take Nigeria, for example. We have no article on Nigerian people. However, we have Igbo people, Hausa people, Yoruba people... and would the average English speaker with no specialized knowledge of Africa know who those peoples are? I am pretty sure that they don't. Yet we use those titles because they are precise and accurate, and self-identifiers. This is likewise precise and accurate, and a self-identifier. As a resident of Japan, I do not distinguish between the terms "Japanese people" and "ethnic Japanese," nor is my first thought that "ethnic Japanese" refers to someone outside of Japan. Rather, my first thought is that it is being used in contrast to, say, Zainichi Koreans, another term which is not used in English but refers accurately and precisely to a certain ethnic group. No one is saying that Ethnic Japanese shouldn't be retained as a redirect, so there is no information loss and a definite knowledge gain for the common masses you have mentioned. Dekimasuが... 11:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose My opinion hasn't changed in the past couple weeks either. And original research and verifiability don't apply as the term can be verified by most English reading humans (and of course cab's Google books search at the top of this talk page.) I do notice a NPOV problem, unnecessary citations and excessive alternate terms (Wikipedia is not a thesaurus) in this articles lead however. Doctor Sunshine 19:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    From WP:NOT#DICT - "Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers."
    Please provide your citations and proper definition if you wish to avoid breaking WP:V. EVERYTHING must be verifiable if stated as fact, personal verifiability are not options. Until you provide citations stating the definition of ethnic Japanese as Japanese emigrants and descendants, the article name is incorrect.falsedef 21:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Nikkei people not correctly used in English. Japanese diaspora is plausible, but this is not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments:

Again, what about "Nikkeijin" rather than Nikkei people? The former gets tens of thousands of Ghits, the latter a few hundred. "Nikkeis" is also a possibility (it gets tens of thousands of Ghits as well, but 98% in Spanish or Portuguese; that pluralisation doesn't seem to be common in English). cab 04:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Mainly because there's a lot of usage with Nikkei = Nikkeijin in English, as seen in the over hundred thousand sites associating Nikkei with Nikkeijin (top of page). Many associations (clubs and organizations) use the term Nikkei in this manner. It also follows the definition of my primary cite [1] and [2]. The "people" part is more of a disambiguation as with Japanese people (who are more often referred to as Japanese). Using Nikkei won't happen, since the Nikkei economic market is obviously more known than the people.falsedef 07:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

For those in opposition, please note that voting won't help your cases much. You need to provide evidence to your arguments. I only enabled the move discussion because it is policy guideline to do so for a move. falsedef 21:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for readding my comment above to a location where more people may read it. I still believe it's the most useful compromise here based on the fact that both Ethnic Japanese and Nikkei people appear to lack support. See "overseas Japanese" -Wikipedia, 33600 Ghits.

How do we feel about Overseas Japanese? For reference, I refer you to the construction of Overseas Chinese, with a redirect tag from Ethnic Chinese and a note on Chinese people at the top of the page. Then we can effectively delineate and broaden the scope of this article. After the introduction, the article can be divided into two main sections: one labelled "Nikkeijin/Nikkei/Nikkei people" (which would contain almost all of the content of the current article), and one labelled "Japanese nationals living abroad" (which can handle both expatriates, and people who aren't ethnic Japanese but hold Japanese nationality and live abroad). A third section could refer to historical issues, such as those Japanese people who were not allowed to return to the country when it was closed, or those who were persecuted after Christianity became controversial. Dekimasu 06:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Dekimasu 06:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Why couldn't those be in separate articles? There's a large difference between emigrants and descendants and temporary residents with citizenship in a different country. There might be kinship with Japanese nationals, but I don't think they're in a similar category to Nikkei. This applies in most cases of nationals abroad. For example, do you feel German Americans (i.e. most whites in America) to be the same as German foreign exchange students and business men visiting America? falsedef 06:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

MSN Encarta appears to define "Nikkei" in English. "Nikkei" is used more often in the Americas (in English, of course), and is embraced by the "Nikkei" people themselves. Whoever is citing WP:UE is just plain wrong.--Endroit 19:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to "vote," in the survey, but as I was composing my reasoning, I read through the article and found that the focus of the article's contents didn't seem to be described by either term. Both "Nikkei" and "Ethnic Japanese" are terms used to describe people, this article, however, deals more with the migrations of people from Japan to other nations and the reason for the migration than it deals with the people as a whole. In contrast to this, the Overseas Chinese article does deals with more than just the places the people have migrated to; it gives information on their assimilation into new cultures, discrimination against them, and the relationship they maintain with the People's Republic of China. Maybe Emigration from Japan would suite this article better. Jecowa 04:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am comfortable with that idea as well. Dekimasuが... 04:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Then a separate article would needed for descendants, since that population and community over time is much larger than solely emigrants. Within America, the Nisei are just as well known as Issei. At the moment, the article is starting class and would need to be filled out anyways. If it's changed to emigrants only, instead of 2 separate topics (temporaries and permanent residents), you'd be looking at four topics: emigrants, descendants, dekasegi (reverse immigrants), and temporary residents. At the moment, we have a fairly well defined term that encompasses issei, later generations, and return emigrants (from Latin America to Japan) -- nikkei. falsedef 08:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
In actuality, though, we already have articles for each group of descendants. They are at titles like Japanese American, Japanese Brazilian, and Japanese Peruvian. Jecowa was right in pointing out that this article focuses more on the actual act of emigration than on the communities as they are constituted. I think it is an important point. Dekimasuが... 09:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Jecowa, where were you five weeks ago? Dekimasu, why didn't we think of that? I can get on board with that. Doctor Sunshine 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conflict resolution[edit]

To anyone, either for or against the move: I don't have the time today or tomorrow to do it myself, but we might want to make a point relating to Wikipedia:Naming conflict#How to make a choice among controversial names or a table of the same kind as is shown there. I am not sure whether it works for or against the proposed title, but it seems like it would be a good policy reference and a fair gauge of the situation. Dekimasu 05:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've pretty much already did most of that already, but if you want it more formalized, then Nikkei still clearly wins.

Criterion Nikkei (people) Nikkeijin ethnic Japanese Overseas Japanese Japanese diaspora
1. Most commonly used name in English Yes No No No No
2. Current undisputed official name of entity Partially (Nikkei organizations) Partially (in Japanese) No No No
3. Current self-identifying name of entity Partially Partially No No No
1 pt = yes, 0pt = no. Totals with partials in parenthesis. 1 (2) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing POVs. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.


Identification of common names using external references

A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English.

  • The Google test
    nikkei "asian american" OR "Japanese american" OR "Japanese Brazilian" OR immigrants OR "Japanese person" OR "Japanese descent" -"wikipedia"
    122,000
    "ethnic Japanese" "asian american" OR "Japanese american" OR "Japanese Brazilian" OR immigrants OR "Japanese person" OR "Japanese descent" -"wikipedia"
    19,100 (note that the term is still ambiguous and therefore inflated compared to the others. I'm not gonna sort through it, obviously)
    "overseas japanese" OR "Japanese overseas" "asian american" OR "Japanese american" OR "Japanese Brazilian" OR immigrants OR "Japanese person" OR "Japanese descent" -"wikipedia"
    9,650
    nikkeijin "asian american" OR "Japanese american" OR "Japanese Brazilian" OR immigrants OR "Japanese person" OR "Japanese descent" -"wikipedia"
    856
    "japanese diaspora" "asian american" OR "Japanese american" OR "Japanese Brazilian" OR immigrants OR "Japanese person" OR "Japanese descent" -"wikipedia"
    485
  • International organisations.
    UN.org Supports Nikkeijin and Nikkei
  • Major English-language media outlets. I used Google news, as it seems BBC archives do not support boolean operators. I don't know how the CNN archives work -- they seem to just be google searches rather than archives.
    nikkei (including same search constraints from above)
    6
    "ethnic Japanese" (including same search constraints from above)
    0 (there were two entries, one was referencing Japanese nationals in a taiko group, the other was ambiguous)
    nikkeijin (including same search constraints from above)
    0
    "overseas japanese" OR "Japanese overseas" (including same search constraints from above)
    0
    "japanese diaspora" (including same search constraints from above)
    0
  • Reference works. Check other encyclopedias.
    Nikkei
    Dictionary.com-RHD,Encarta, OED (They reference JAs rather than Nikkei in general, however)
    Nikkeijin
    OED
    Japanese Diaspora
    Encarta brings up migration
    Ethnic Japanese
    Encarta brings up information on Japanese nationals, obviously not what we want
    Overseas Japanese
    N/A, add any that you find
  • Geographic name servers. Check geographic name servers such as the NGIA GNS server at http://gnswww.nga.mil/geonames/GNS/index.jsp.
    N/A, its searching doesn't complete (inefficient algorithm, probably)

Correct any errors as you please, but don't change data unless you have proof of it.falsedef 08:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The stats above are misleading at best. An English language Google search of "nikkei people" reveals 204 hits, where "ethnic Japanese" clocks in at 58,300. A somewhat more reliable Google Book search revels "nikkei people" 10, "ethnic Japanese" 464. And Google Scholar "nikkei people" 17, "ethnic Japanese" 459.
Further, obviously everyone's going to want the article titled with the term they are most used to but it's necessary to respect terms used by other people. Ethnic Japanese is used by many people, its use is clear from context in the same way native English speakers can tell a spoken "there" from a "their". Really, I think any of the terms suggested throughout this page are fine, including all nikkei variations, but, to put it simply, ethnic Japanese was here first. As a bonus, it's the most common term. Also, I, as an English speaker, know what nekkei means but am in the minority. Aside from all that, nikkei's still mentioned right alongside ethnic Japanese in the article. All using ethnic Japanese as the title does is help more people find the page via search engines. I still don't see what the big deal is.
Also, I'm changing the intro back to something a little more encyclopedic. The 23 references in a row and fact tag bit were amusing but it's been there long enough. Doctor Sunshine 09:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Falsedef removed those citations of his own accord and moved them to the talk page; you seem to be willfully ignoring it by linking to an old version.
The two citations that remained helped verify the article and did nothing to retract from its usefulness (although it would have been good to have a reference on ethnic Japanese as well). I see no reason why the names shouldn't be cited. And finally, this is not an established page title. This was a redirect until December 18th, and we started to discuss the title as soon as the title started to cause confusion... that is, as soon as it came into being (no offense intended to cab). Dekimasu 11:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The burden of proof is upon Doctor to provide his sources. I don't believe there is a source, and I'm not gonna bother looking for one for him. I can remove the term "ethnic Japanese" completely from the article intro until he provides sources. At the moment, I've left it open for him to provide a citation. If he edits it again, I'll begin vandal warnings, as he'll be beyond good faith.falsedef 14:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind, I've removed it completely. He can readd it when he finds a source.falsedef 14:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Your searches are misleading, not mine. We want a title that is relevant to the discussion and this article page. Nikkei brings up 20,200,000 search hits -- I've already mentioned this before (top of the page along with total "Ethnic Japanese" hits). The whole debate for the past weeks has pivoted around "ethnic Japanese" being ambiguous. Please take the time to understand this issue. falsedef 13:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Dekimasu, that falsedef is willing to deface the article and issue threats about "religiously editing" the article are very relevant. The citations are unnecessary as the terms can be confirmed by hundreds of sources, including dictionaries. Check any featured article and see how many titles and terms are cited, i.e., Sun. If any of his citations are useful they should be moved to external links. And from the page history it started as ethnic Japanese in February 2003 and was only used as a redirect for about 6 months last year. I don't believe there's any confusion (maybe one person) but rather nitpicking. Namely the argument that the term can be applied to a different definition. It's the same as the hundreds or thousands of American English v. commonwealth English debates across Wikipedia.
falsedef, you're honestly accusing me of being a vandal? Qualify that. There are hundreds of sources available, as I've already indicated several times, at Google Books (And rember this: http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/ethnic+Japanese ?). You've failed to mention that the "nikkei" results will be inflated by various financial references including Nikkei 225. Google Books also revels only 1000 hits for "nekkei" and Google Scholar has 15,400 but those numbers are also inflated as indicated by a cursory glance at the search results. Besides which, that's not the issue of this move request, you've opted to go with "nikkei people". Doctor Sunshine 20:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Re:whether page title is established. Yes, it was also a page before. That page was successfully merged into Japanese people without incident. And now we are arguing whether this page title is ambiguous based on the definition of Japanese people. The page came back with actual content on December 18th, and we started to discuss problems with the title on December 20th. Dekimasu 04:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
"Ethnic Japanese" is also inflated, that's why I used search constraints. You still don't udnerstand the point of making the searches relevant by adding the constraints. Anyways, stop referencing articles that reference wikipedia that is disallowed. Please read Wikipedia:Naming conflict:
The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term. - Wikipedia:Naming conflict
Add a proper source that defines ethnic Japanese, until then you're vandalizing the page.falsedef 01:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm going to ask you to stop being rude. You failed to mention nikkei was inflated and you shouldn't be using OR in your searches. Even then, numbers are beside the point, look at the graph on Talk:Humour/Spelling. And come to think of it, why are you altering the lead when there's no consensus? The move request hasn't even closed yet. It should be reverted to before the move request was placed. Show me an FA that cites a common term or lists more that 2 or 3 alternates in the lead. An inline citation is not required. As long as we're providing reading material I'd like you to look over WP:CIVIL and WP:VAND. Doctor Sunshine 03:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Look again at the top of the talkpage. I've stated that Nikkei needed to be disambiguated (constrained) so that the page hits would be relevant (not inflated). I did that, and you can view the progression yourself at the top of the page. No matter what happens, Nikkei will win out as more common over ethnic Japanese. And stop calling me rude. I've given you enough chances to meet WP:V. You keep glancing over it, even though it is a core policy. I have no OR, all my cites are not OR. I have common usage research on this page, however this is a talk page, not article space (talk pages do not need to meet OR, V, or NPOV rules). Again:
Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [2] - WP:V
Please provide your cites. No consensus is needed until you do so. Is this so hard to get through your head? I've said it about 10 times on this talk page. Without verifiability you are in the wrong. You can keep claiming that I'm being rude, but my tone is only this way because you're trying my patience. I have put a lot of work into finding verifiable sources and common usage -- you have done nothing but give one bad cite and a few unverifiable claims. Provide your cites. Provide your cites. Provide your cites. Do you understand now?falsedef 04:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Your search method is flawed. Examine:
dog big - 112,000,000
dog big OR red - 150,000,000
Yet, I'm not getting what I want. I don't see anything on what I was looking for...
big red dog - 43,300,000
Bingo! Tons of hits for Clifford the Big Red Dog! Now, you've been rude since you got here, blaming your "tone" on me does not excuse it. Did you read the vandalism link? Am I a vandal? Again, terms that can be easily verified by any number of online webpages and books do not need inline citation. A term is not what's meant by content. You want me to post a link so that you'll believe ethnic Japanese is legitimate? Even though you've evidently come across thousands of links to such in your research? Even though I've told you hundreds of sources can be found at Google Books? Is that it? Will that make you happy? Here you go: [3]. Enjoy. Doctor Sunshine 08:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you can find a reliable source, but that isn't a WP:RS source, nor does it distinguish between emigrants and their descendants (Nikkeijin) and Japanese nationals. Dekimasu 08:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, if you're not going to bring anything, stay out of it. Doctor Sunshine 21:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
How does that cite define what "ethnic Japanese" means? It doesn't. We've been discussing ambiguous naming for the past few weeks, yet you've still failed to understand the issue. I'm asking for you to learn what the issue is before barging in head first with your claims. Ambiguity is when something can have multiple meanings, or the meaning is not well defined. Currently Ethnic Japanese has a meaning that refers to multiple people (such as Japanese in Japan and Japanese born outside of Japan), some of which do not pertain to this article (Japanese nationals in Japan).falsedef 09:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Third time: Am I a vandal? Yes or no? I've addressed ambiguity and context numerous times. Does Lemon discuss lousy cars? That's context. You want me to waste more of my time explaining what's already acknowledged by the fact that ethnic Japanese redirected here even when Dekimasu moved the page? Sure, why not. Here, if the log in screen comes up click anywhere on the right pannel. Be sure to check out page three especially. Doctor Sunshine 21:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You show yet again that you do not understand the issue with the citations you are giving. that citation does not disambiguate or define what ethnic Japanese means. Can I be any more clear on this issue? Can you take the time to understand why this is the issue? Can you take the time to find a proper source that defines what ethnic Japanese means. You continue to barge head on without understanding the core problem to the article name. And yes, removing my citations and information is vandalism along with adding incorrect and uncited information. Would you like to see the warning templates?
Information.png Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. If you continue to do so, it may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or original content, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Information.png Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. If you continue to do so, it may be considered vandalism. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
I have not initiated warnings on your page, since I've given a good faith warning on this talk page. You've already violated the article space twice by moving it and deleting my cites. Until you provide citations, you may not add ethnic Japanese as the article name in the intro. You keep assuming that you're somehow above giving reliable and accurate sources. How many times must I tell you this? I'm not being condescending, you're just ignoring what we are asking of you. falsedef 22:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
So now you want me to crack open some more dictionaries again, huh? Well, now I know where to go for all my insult, threat and bullshit needs. Good talk. I'll call you. Tah. Doctor Sunshine 22:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Resorting to snide remarks does not help your arguments. You again avoid work to find actual evidence for your claims. falsedef 22:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Google search[edit]

I'll be nice and explain what constraints are for. The AND boolean operator is inherent in the search. However, there's only one constraint (decrease in sample space) we want to set up, the article word (e.g. nikkei) and the relationship to the definition (e.g. Japanese Americans are nikkei, Japanese immigrants are nikkei). To set up this relation, you need one AND operator (automatically included) and as many OR operators as their are contexts relevant (together, they form one larger constraint). It doesn't matter if you're talking about "Japanese Americans" or "Japanese Brazilians", because they both are Nikkei, therefore the search should be a merge operator (in this case the sample space constraints are merged with the OR operator).

The search is basically two components, the word we are trying to define, and the context it is in:

word AND context

In google, word AND context can be represented by "word" "context". However, since there are many contexts to which the word is applicable, we want to include the applicable contexts:

word AND context OR context2 OR context3

Within google parsing, this is equivalent to:

word AND (context OR context2 OR context3)

Which is equivalent to:

word context OR context2 OR context3

This is also equivalent to:

(word AND context) OR (word AND context2) OR (word AND context3)

The above shows a how logic and reasoning is defined for the searches. In one instance, people might be talking about Japanese Americans, and they use the word nikkei to refer to them. However, in another case, they might be talking about Japanese Brazilians, and still use the word nikkei to describe them. Both contexts are accurate depictions of the meaning of nikkei and therefore those two searches can be unioned together (add total number of websites, and eliminate duplicates).


An example of the above "word/term" AND ("context"):

nikkei AND "Japanese Americans"

Which is equivalent to:

nikkei "Japanese Americans"

Or another example with two correct contexts:

nikkei AND ("Japanese Americans" OR "Japanese Brazilians")

This is a good context, since both Japanese americans and Japanese Brazilians are Japanese emigrants and their descendants (the sample space is what the article speaks about). Which is equivalent to:

nikkei "Japanese Americans" OR "Japanese Brazilians"

By adding context to a term, we can make sure that it has little chance of meaning something else. In this case, we wish to make sure "ethnic Japanese" DOES NOT mean Japanese nationals (Japanese nationals are not Japanese Americans, and therefore have a smaller chance of being within the sample space of "ethnic Japanese" AND "Japanese Americans"). However, since "ethnic Japanese" has such a loose meaning, even with the constraints above, the numbers of ethnic Japanese hits are inflated more than the other terms. This is because when talking about the nikkei AND "Japanese Americans" there is almost no chance you'd be talking about the stock market (since nikkei has very precise meanings which rarely collide).

Even when constrained equally to multiple contexts, Nikkei has more hits. The more and better constraints you add, Nikkei will continue to dominate "ethnic Japanese", despite "ethnic Japanese" still having a more ambiguous sample space after each constraint.

"ethnic Japanese" and "nikkei" are unrestrained sample spaces. When a constraint is added, the sample space SHRINKS, but even after shrinking the sample space of nikkei into our proper context, it still has more hits than the unrestrained "ethnic Japanese".

"ethnic Japanese"

62,900

nikkei -> nikkei AND "Japanese Americans"

19,500,000 -> 68,900

nikkei AND "Japanese Americans" 68,900 > 62,900 "ethnic Japanese"

After constraining to a very good context on Nikkei (it is now unambiguous), it still beats the unbound (ambiguous) "ethnic Japanese". This is already enough proof that Nikkei has greater common usage than MULITPLE meanings of "Ethnic Japanese", i.e. more people identify Nikkei to mean Japanese emigrants and descendants (Japanese Americans) than people identify "ethnic Japanese" to mean Japanese nationals or Japanese abroad.

Please take the time to understand what the above means before you comment to this, as ambiguity is important to the discussion. falsedef 09:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't condescend to me. As I demonstrated, you cannot guaranty that because they use one term they're going to use another, nor can you guaranty in which context any of the terms are used. One could be discussing nikkei in the financial context and then mention Japanese Americans, or one could be discussing nikkei in the context of people and mention no related terms, and vice versa. Everybody makes mistakes, I won't hold this over you head. Just fix it or strike it. And, again: you've opted for "nikkei people", not "nikkei" alone. If you wanted to disambiguate you should have used "nikkei (people)". Doctor Sunshine 21:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The chances of a Japanese stock market having anything to do with Japanese Americans is slim. The percentage of sample space collision of Japanese peoples (ethnic Japanese) being included in an article about Japanese Americans is greater. What are you trying to argue here? I've put the SAME constraints upon the sample space, and have even given ethnic Japanese a unbounded sample space, yet it still loses. If you would take the time to look at other articles, you'll see why Nikkei people is used. Ainu people (who are known as Ainu), Japanese people (who are commonly known as Japanese), Altay people (who are more commonly known as Altay), Chechen people (Chechens), Taz people (Taz), etc. You are wrong here, and you keep proving your ignorance of the subject at hand. If you'd like to prove me wrong, please provide some evidence. How many times will you ignore the call for evidence? falsedef 22:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
So you've perfected the art of the Google search have you? I'll inform the academy. How many times will you ignore my evidence? [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]. This is farce now. If you can't understand my points, you're on your own. Doctor Sunshine 22:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Continued from last two sections[edit]

falsedef, you've called me an idiot, a vandal and told me everything I've said is wrong. How does that help anything at all? If you really want to know "what I'm trying to argue here" then here's my advice. Take a walk or go do something fun, come back, take a few deep breathes and read back over this page. I've presented my case clearly and I've addressed all of your points.
Dekimasu, I saw your solicitations at WikiProject Japan and such. I didn't realize you thought of yourself as the voice of reason. I'd got the impression you were condoning falsedef's behaviour when you flattered him for undoing the article defacement and called me a dick, and so on. Maybe you can help settle some things, if you're still willing. Do you think the term ethnic Japanese needs an inline citation in the article space? Do you think it's original research or unverifiable? Do you think falsedef's Google test is spot on? Do you think falsedef has been civil? He's contradicted and/or disregarded everything I've said across the board, maybe he'll listen to you. Worth a shot, no? Doctor Sunshine 13:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Before the questions: I asked you to be civil mainly because I saw your coments to me after my effort to resolve the page name through a third title as condescending, and because you called my comments "bizarre". You had already applied the metawiki page to falsedef, so I won't claim credit for the idea. I hope you support my efforts to bring more people into the conversation.
  • 1) I think it would be helpful to have one citation from a reliable source in the article space for each term.
  • 2) I think that the name Ethnic Japanese is verifiable. Here is a reliable source: Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and although it's hard many sources that explicitly exclude people in Japan, sources that appear to equate "ethnic Japanese" with "ethnic Japanese minority" through context are fairly common.
  • 3) I have not attempted to sort through the Google searches relating to which term is more common, and falsedef could be wrong about the Google searches. However, because Ethnic Japanese fails WP:DAB it is already disqualified before googling. Here is an ambiguous source: Journal of Japanese Studies. Here is a reliable source that means "Japanese people": Harvard Asia Quarterly. ---Therefore, I tried to determine whether "Nikkei" passes WP:UE, and I decided that it did due to its status as a self-identifier and its use in the academic community. But as I have said several times, I will support any precise and unambiguous title. It doesn't have to be "Nikkei".
  • 4) I don't believe either side is being civil, but I believe both sides are acting in good faith. You told me to "stay out of it" if I'm not going to "bring anything". Falsedef is trying to "bring it", and although I don't think he is editing from a neutral perspective, he is trying to abide by policy. Insults on intelligence and character are bad. Of course I don't believe either side is trying to put this page at a bad title intentionally, so I'm not particularly upset myself.
  • Finally: Yes, I see my position as between yours and falsedef's. I proposed Nikkei people, and the move failed to pass. I thought Japanese diaspora would solve the problem, but it didn't. I thought Overseas Japanese would resolve the WP:UE debate, but it hasn't. If Ethnic Japanese is a redirect, and this page has an otheruses tag ("Ethnic Japanese redirects here. For the broader ethnic group, including residents of Japan, see Japanese people"), I will be perfectly happy. I still see no reason why that shouldn't happen. Dekimasu 09:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, that is helpful. However,
1) a term that can be confirmed by hundreds or thousands of sources, including dictionaries, should have an inline citation in the lead? The lead is ideally citation free and any links defining the subject can be placed in external links, if they're useful, like every other article.
3) DAB we've already discussed but I feel it's covered by WP:ENGVAR and any small degree of ambiguity is no more so than any of the thousands of articles with the primary use listed clean and the disambig page listed with (disambiguation), or a tag like, For people of Japanese descent everywhere/in Japan, see Japanese people.
4) You're an idiot. Of course, I don't mean that but am attempting illustrating a point. You haven't experienced of any of his attacks, an thus weren't expected to be a saint and turn the other cheek. I, on the other hand, have been on the receiving end of such, which is a wholly different experience. It's easy to say, or expect, one should ignore it but not only is it difficult to do so but undesirable. If I ignore it, I'm an enabler. I've raised my level of response appropriately but I've not been rude or insulted him. You claimed earlier I was condescending to you both but I assure you it's just my colourful way of speaking (and writing) and I'm not a malicious person.
5) Again, I think all of the terms are fine only I don't believe there's reasonable justification to switch. Small thing, "broader ethnic group" undermines the fact that it's a different definition. Overseas, again, seems fine except that by the semantic arguments I've seen here it can still include vacationers and temporary residents.Doctor Sunshine 21:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Number 3 is the big thing here (and it's the cause of your opinion #5). Common usage for the hard things on the ground is rocks, but that's still a disambiguation page. Likewise I have never in my life said American football, but the page is there because it requires disambiguation. Common usage for one definition does not override frequent usage for another. "Japanese people" are an ethnic group... a member of that ethnic group is an "ethnic Japanese" person. I know that's not what we want to get into, but I would also point out again that Ethnic Japanese would remain a redirect to an unambiguous title. This has the additional advantage of helping someone (probably me, as I do a lot of work with WP:DPL and page links relating to WP:JAPAN) identify which links are intentional (point directly to the page name) and which are possibly misdirected (those pointing to Ethnic Japanese would be separated out in "What links here").
I have commented a few times on WP:ENGVAR, but it would be helpful to know exactly which part of it you mean. Dekimasu 04:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Judging from your previous comments, you are saying that "Basically the relevant points are that one should not move an article because one learned another word or phrase for the subject and that instead of arguing over semantics it's better to pour that energy into adding and improving the articles content." However, I am not arguing against the article because I don't like the word or understand it within a given context. It's all because of WP:DAB, and there is no context in inserting a search term. Can you explain why you feel WP:DAB is unimportant to this debate? You very rarely reply to my posts that talk about ambiguity. Dekimasuが... 11:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I feel like we're on the same page now. DAB is fine and good but neither should it override every other policy. A search term does have a context in that you can expect to get more results for the more common usage which, maybe only in North America, is its use here. They may have opted to use American Football but they didn't opt to use "Lemon (fruit)" or "Spider-Man (character)". Nikkei is a specialized word and diaspora is obscure so I feel ethnic Japanese is the better choice for all the reasons listed under rationale at WP:NC(CN). Also, in terms of DAB links, if someone doesn't check what they're linking to they're just as likely to make a mistake no matter what this article is called. All that said, I can agree with Jecowa above. Doctor Sunshine 00:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


Read my comment below on why documents use both Japanese and "ethnic Japanese". One implies directly lineage, while the other implies more than lineage (nationality in this case). That's an issue of keeping nationality separate, not keeping ethnicity separate (ethnic Japanese are definied only by ethnicity, while Japanese can mean ethnicity and nationality.) In fact, you might want to re-look at that citation, as it implies that Japanese Brazilians are inclusive of Japanese and "ethnic Japanese":
Japanese and ethnic Japanese:
  • Number of Japanese residing in Brazil: 83,803 (October 1998)
  • Population of Japanese descent: 1.3 million (estimated)
  • Number of Japanese-Brazilians working in Japan, 222,217 (December 1998). -[4]
Notice the lack of population figures for Japanese nationals in Japan, though it refers to both "Japanese and ethnic Japanese" (both refer to Brazilian nikkei)? The citation is NOT implying a separation that you're looking for, nor does it define ethnic Japanese. falsedef 08:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood that citation. The lack of population figures for Japanese nationals in Japan is because this is the MOFA page relating to Brazil. Go to the MOFA page for many other countries and you can see the same apparent nationality (Japanese) vs. ethnicity (ethnic Japanese) contrast. The second number is clearly exclusive of the first number in their tallies, and I regret having chosen a country that didn't make that clear. If you take a look at the citations in Template:Japanese ethnicity, it becomes clear that that is the usage they are going for. Dekimasu 15:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, I believe the separate terms are due to the addition of nationalism, not an exclusion. No where does it directly define ethnic Japanese to be the term of this article. That is not a reliable source, as you're adding your own interpretation to its usage. falsedef 09:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Take this MOFA page, then. There would be no reason to add "migrants from Japan" there if the meaning was that both were ethnic Japanese, because then simply the phrase "ethnic Japanese" would have been sufficient. Dekimasuが... 10:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
They're using Japanese to mean citizenship and ethnic Japanese to mean descent, therefore when they say "ethnic Japanese", they're not describing nationals (by citizenship). I've already made this point awhile ago. That's why in their population figures Japanese in Brazil is listed (immigrants, but Japanese citizens), but Japanese nationals in Japan are not (nonimmigrants, citizens). Eitherway, ethnic Japanese is NOT the term to describe this article, as their usage still does not cover recent immigrants. Nor is the citation a definition.
You might also want to check this out -- it's their actual page on immigration: MOFA: Emigration and the Nikkei Communities. Nikkei is their term of choice to describe immigrants and descendants. falsedef 10:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Now I'm totally confused about your reading of the page. "They're using Japanese to mean citizenship and ethnic Japanese to mean descent, therefore when they say "ethnic Japanese", they're not describing nationals (by citizenship)." That is exactly the point of the people who are arguing for the current title (that excluding citizenship yields the term "ethnic Japanese"), and exactly what the citation was supposed to show. Why would they list the number of Japanese nationals in Japan on the page about their foreign relations with Brazil? This wasn't about what term MOFA prefers. It was about finding a reliable source for the term "ethnic Japanese" as requested. It is a separate issue from what the page should be named.
Also, within the context there is no indication that "Japanese in Brazil" indicates a recent immigrant. Many are likely working for Japanese companies in Brazil and have no desire to remain there for the rest of their lives. Dekimasuが... 10:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Japanese nationals living overseas in Brazil: 83,803. Permanent residents: 80,918 (97% of Japanese nationals in Brazil)[5]. They might not have clarified it, but I think their intentions were to address immigrants, unless you think those 3% of Japanese temporaries (about 0.2% of Japanese in Brazil total) were what they were aiming for. If you check out their Guyana page, you can see a new term they have to describe Japanese in Guyana. falsedef 11:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, the relevance of MOFA using Nikkei is important. We're discussing an article move, and so common usage, disambiguation, and accuracy are what will be needed to make the move. Once a good cite is found for "ethnic Japanese" to mean Japanese immigrants and descendants, then adding it to the article space can be allowed, then the discussion will be about common usage and disambig. At the moment, the MOFA usage of "ethnic Japanese" EXCLUDES immigrants to Brazil (not the term we want to use, since Nikkei are both immigrants and descendants). Overall, it's not a cite you'd want to use in an argument for usage of "Ethnic Japanese" or definition, especially when the cite's publisher supporters Nikkei. falsedef 11:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
As for me being rude, I'm just restating what needs to be done by Doctor Sunshine to be able to edit article space on wikipedia. So far he's still failed to produce any verifiability (sorry, but your citation fails as a definition, also, Deki), which is a huge problem for any editor of Wikipedia and something he needs to accept. I've said this a dozen times already, yet he still just fires back at me with opinions with no evidence, then claims I'm "contradicting" and "disregarded" everything he has said.
No, Doctor, I have not disregarded your claims. I have shown that it was faulty. That is not disregard -- I have actually taken your logic seriously enough to debate against it. If I were to disregard it, I would've ignored it completely (like you have done with my evidence, or "bullshit").
You need citations Doctor. This is not a rule I made up to spite you, it's been part of wikipedia since the beginning. Every time I've brought up your ignoring following wikipedia policy, you have brushed it off as being "rude" or "POV". (No where have I posted POV statements, that requires me to post opinions on the article space. There currently are no opinions on the article space, only information that I have cited. That is NPOV. ). You have gone as so far as to call my claims "bullshit" and my calls for accuracy to be "threats".
You need to realize that I didn't post warnings on your user space for YOUR benefit, not to make threats. I could've already put up a class 2 user warning. I didn't post a warning, because I didn't want to hurt your reputation. In turn, you have mocked me for it. By removing my information, even after me telling you that it'd be against policy, that is on the level of vandalism. These "threats" (warnings) that I have given you are just reiteration of wikipedia rules.
If you have a problem with my citing a contentious defintion, you may go to the wikipedia policy page, not argue about it with me here. I put up those cites in the beginning lines because they would be disputed otherwise. They will be removed once Nikkei is no longer contentious among editors here. As long as the information is cited reliably and states the information directly, then it follows Wikipedia core guidelines (No OR, NPOV, V). The google test was not my idea, it was originally done by CAB, which I then expanded for common usage, and then was asked to be done again by Dekimasu, as per naming dispute guidelines. Following naming dispute, Nikkei stands out as the clear winner, because you still haven't provided your own proof otherwise.
I'm willing to go to arbitration for this issue. falsedef 08:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I have never called you an idiot. Idiot only appears in CAB's book list and from your words. I said you were showing ignorance by ignoring (many times) the evidence I have set forth and the guidelines of Wikipedia core policy. I make no remarks about your intelligence, but rather your apathy to verifiability. falsedef 09:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You've misinterpreted my posts completely. That you can't or are unwilling to interpret dictionaries, government websites or Wikipedia policy correctly saddens me. Insults and name calling are rude and childish. Being rude will never help your case. I don't give a shit where you post your vandal warnings because your claim is bogus, which you should understand if you've read WP:VAND. We're done. Doctor Sunshine 00:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

An idea[edit]

How about Ethnic Japanese outside of Japan or Expatriot Japanese? Either one would be very clear on what the article covered. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think "expatriot" implies nationality rather than ethnicity, and wouldn't apply to Japanese Americans born and raised in the USA, for example. However, the reasoning behind Ethnic Japanese outside of Japan is the same as that of Overseas Japanese and I would support it. Dekimasu 05:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Common usage for Nikkei is more than for either of those. Restating my arguments above, Nikkei people are researched and are a subject by themselves. Ethnic Japanese outside of Japan (or expatriates) would include temporary residents, students, and even tourists/travelers. Though similar to Nikkei, their intentions and culture diverge greatly.falsedef 05:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of getting myself embroiled in yet another wikidebate, and at risk of you all saying "who invited him to the party", here's my two cents: if this is an article about people of Japanese ethnicity in Japan and abroad, then Ethnic Japanese seems a fine name. If, on the other hand, this is meant to be an article about people of Japanese descent living outside Japan, then we should use Nikkei, a term which is used and acknowledged by just about any scholar of Japanese studies, and which has a fairly specific meaning not adequately covered by English-language terms like "overseas Japanese", which as Falsedef points out conflates Japanese nationals on holiday (or living abroad temporarily) with Japanese-Americans or others who are not Japanese nationals. So, ultimately, this isn't really a question of what the article should be called, but what the content is meant to focus on. That determined, the choice of title should become obvious. LordAmeth 10:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has proposed that we should add residents of Japan to this article yet (although forsooth that'll come forth forthwith to further foil efforts at specification). I invite you to vote, verily. Dekimasu 10:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
There's so much discussion, the voting got kind of lost in there - didn't see it. Thanks for pointing it out. LordAmeth 12:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the one thing we can all agree on is that this is a great, big clusterfuck. However, pretty much everything that's been suggested here, and all of the redirects, are pointing at a very similar subject. The logical thing to do would be to allow the article to address all of the suggestions (note: in it's own time (and I do not mean that every term needs to be listed right off the bat in the lead, but introduced naturally and as necessary)) and explain the differences. If nikkeijin don't identify with vacationers and temporary residents: explain that in the article but don't exclude them. It's not likely anything about vacationers or temporary residents is going to ruin or overrun the article. They're all valid, related terms. As for which term gets the distinguished honour of being the title? Well, consensus can change, or in this case, develop. Give it 2 to 6 months, and if it's still bothering you, try another move request. Reasonable? Doctor Sunshine 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Um. I think the content of this article is not even the major problem. The problem is that there is one article named Japanese people and one article named Ethnic Japanese and both of those article names mean the same thing. Is it ok to put all of the stuff from Japanese people at the top of this article? If it's not ok then there is a title problem, whatever "no consensus" means. 210.189.164.103 03:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
It can also mean a smaller ethnic group within a larger group. That's the primary meaning especially in multicultural countries like the US and Canada. The definition is what all the squabbling here has been about, really. Consensus is one of the founding principles of Wikipedia, or so I'm told. By the way, I don't think the vacationer bit is necessary myself but I mention that because it seemed to be a bit of a sticking point with Dekimasu and falsedef. Doctor Sunshine 09:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Doctor Sunshine. Ethnic Japanese only refers to Japanese that don't live in Japan. Oxford says, "Ethnic - of or relating to a population subgroup (within a larger or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or cultural tradition." The only mention of Nikkei in Oxford is Nikkei index - a figure indicating the relative price of representative shares on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. Jecowa 15:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you understand that ethnic Japanese means Japanese in Japan when cultural context is used? When heritage is used, nikkei are included with Japanese nationals. And you're wrong about oxford, OED has both nikkei and nikkeijin: http://www.oed.com/help/updates/necial-nipissing.html, as already cited above. falsedef 00:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the Japanese living in Japan would be considered a subgroup of Japan's dominant cultural group. Do you have access to the definitions for these words? In the Heritage dictionary, the Nikkei entry only defines the stock exchange.[6][7] The quarterly update you pointed to is described officially as a draft, but I've applied for the trial subscription to the Oxford English Dictionary Online to see what these two definitions say. Approval will take at most two business days according to the advertisement. Jecowa 06:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The definition of "ethnic" you are using is not the only one we have been talking about; for example, see this, particularly the AHED entry that lists the two relevant meanings as 1a (the culture as a whole, see Japanese people) and 1b (the contents of this article). Japanese people are an ethnic group (as per the lead of that article); a member of that group, including a resident of Japan, is "ethnic Japanese". There are really two different problems at work here: whether to approve the proposed name, and whether to change the current name. The answer to the first one is not clear, but I think the answer to the second one is clear. Dekimasu 07:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
For examples of reliable sources that use ethnic Japanese to mean those in Japan (nonexclusive): Enc. Britannica, NCBI, Nature, UChicago professor, Time. For example, Britannica states, The population of Japan is very homogeneous, consisting almost entirely of ethnic Japanese. Anyways, even if OED lacks Nikkei, there's still many other scholarly sources that use it and define it. I don't know why'd you pay just to check for OED, when that's just one source? falsedef 08:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think I'm fine with using "Nikkei people" as an article title. I really liked those Google searches above. I would recomend using advanced searches so that you can exclude the word "wikipedia" and search only in English pages, though. Jecowa 20:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I should mention that falsedef's Google searches are under dispute and he's searching for nikkei instead of "nikkei people" which is a very uncommon term and improper usage. Doctor Sunshine 21:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
If you would take the time to look at other articles, you'll see why Nikkei people is used. Ainu people (who are known as Ainu), Japanese people (who are commonly known as Japanese), Altay people (who are more commonly known as Altay), Chechen people (Chechens), Taz people (Taz), etc. You are wrong here, and you keep proving your ignorance of the subject at hand. If you'd like to prove me wrong, please provide some evidence. How many times will you ignore the call for evidence? -requoted, since you still don't understand what disambiguation is for. LEARN ABOUT DISAMBIGUATION. It's been quite awhile, yet you still haven't picked up on it. "ethnic Japanese" is ambiguous, "nikkei" is ambiguous. Nikkei however, is correct usage, therefore standard procedure is to add "people", and is typical when talking about groups, like the examples above. Did you want more examples? You gonna keep ignoring every example I bring up, and dismiss it all out of ignorance? Are you gonna troll those articles too ("Hey guys, why are you using Chechen peoples instead of Chechens? Hey, why are you using Ainu people instead of Ainu?", etc., etc.). You gonna keep pressing your opinions, yet with no proof? My opinions have been validated over and over on this talk page. Your opinions have only been reinterpretations of previous meanings. You can't keep redefining what ethnic Japanese means without proof, and dismiss scholarly definitions with none of your own. falsedef 01:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The -"wikipedia" in the searches already excludes wikipedia from its searching, however I failed to remove non-English pages. I noticed this awhile ago, but when I re-did the searches, the ratio still remained the same (Nikkei > "ethnic Japanese" in all forms by an order of magnitude) by a factor of around ~+5%, so I didn't bother redoing all the numbers. Anyone may verify this themselves (but be careful because wikipedia's advanced search incorrectly parses booleans from its normal search). falsedef 01:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

An idea, 2[edit]

How about Ethnic Japanese minorities (or the singular, if necessary)? Smallest change suggested yet, but also clarifies the focus well. Can't think of any problems with it off the top of my head. Dekimasu 09:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. "Ethnic Japanese" means all people of Japanese ethnic descent, including those in Japan, and excluding those people who live in Japan, and may even be Japanese citizens, but are not of Japanese ethnic heritage (i.e. Japanese blood, Japanese descent). If you ask an Englishman in England what his ethnicity is, or if you ask the same man the same question when he is in Paris, the answer will not change. Ethnicity has nothing to do with where you are, only with where your ancestors, that is to say your genetic/blood heritage, comes from. LordAmeth 17:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused by your response. I agree with the things you said, but adding the word "minority" excludes people in Japan, since ethnic Japanese make up the majority there. Dekimasu 04:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I am also confused. Don't we want the name of the article's title to exclude people living in Japan? Jecowa 05:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yet not if you asked an American or Canadian.[8][9] I'd imagine that's how the North American meaning developed. Further than that, Would the English or Parisian fellow likely say "I'm ethnic blank" or "I'm blank". The natural and intuitive title for an article about an entire people is Blank people. Here, not only ethnic Japanese covered by WP:ENGVAR but it's also easily understandable by those outside of multicultural countries, in my humble opinion. Doctor Sunshine 21:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is ambiguous to this resident of Japan. If I searched for "ethnic Japanese" and the contents that came up were the page now at Japanese people, I wouldn't be at all surprised. After all, there are residents of Japan and Japanese nationals who aren't of Japanese ethnicity. Dekimasuが... 11:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
After reading a fair number of documents, mostly about JA internment. I believe a large portion of confusion is stemming from people misinterpreting ethnicity and nationality distinctions. When someone refers to nikkei as "ethnic Japanese" as opposed to "Japanese", the distinction is made due to nationality. "Ethnic Japanese" are bound by heritage and culture -- this is in contrast to nationality which is also described as "Japanese". Therefore there are documents that refer to both Japanese and "ethnic Japanese". The distinction is based upon nationality, not ethnicity (both Japanese in Japan and Japanese in other countries are bound by blood). When Japanese Americans were interned, most were American born, and therefore "ethnic Japanese" in the sense of having the same ethnicity (bloodline) as Japanese nationals, but not necessarily the same citizenship which would be encompassed when talking about "Japanese". When speaking about Germans, we mostly refer to the ones living in the country Germany, but this is not to say that they are a separate ethnicity, but because they are of separate nationality. By using the term ethnic, it implies solely blood relation or culture, but does not always include nationality (though it often does, due to proximity and national language). falsedef 01:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
For a more formal implication:
  • ethnic Japanese (Japanese peoples) -> ancestry OR culture
  • Japanese -> ancestry OR culture OR nationality -> "ethnic Japanese" OR nationality
  • Nikkei -> ancestry NOT nationality -> "ethnic Japanese" NOT nationality
Hope this helps. It should be noted that nationality (country of identification) does not always mean citizenship in this example. Also, Dekimasu, I understand you wanting to appease the most people as possible, however, we shouldn't be make up new names for peoples. Nikkei is already established and well documented in English, and therefore Nikkei peoples should be used (adjective, not noun [10]). falsedef 02:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Closing comments[edit]

I took the ungrateful job to clear the WP:RM backlog and try to end these megabytes of discussion (by application of a sledgehammer if necessary). I've read all of the above (trust me...). Here's a brief summary of my conclusions:

  1. Current title (Ethnic Japanese) is ambiguous and misleading. Its prevalence in common usage is normal, as it is usually only necessary to stress that someone is an ethnic Japanese when he/she is not from Japan. This article, however, is devoted only to Nikkeis and it requires an unambiguous title.
  2. Since this article is about only Japanese not living in Japan, the choice comes down to a clear, unambiguous, and simple title. IMO only two candidates come into play:
    1. Nikkei people as suggested. Straightforward, precise, but, judging on the opposition, not clear to an Average Joe and bordering on WP:UE.
    2. Japanese diaspora/Overseas Japanese. Less common than above, but clear enough. Several posters indicated that they could agree with such or, similar title, clearly expressing what the article is about. It is obviously not a Google favorite; but it's descriptive and commonsense. (Btw, I don't think that word diaspora has the connotations of people being expelled. See the definition.)

Actually, no Google search or even scholar/book search IMO can prove anything conclusive; it has proven that "Nikkei" has certain usage in English and among scholars, but it was inconclusive whether this certain is prevalent enough (for suitable definition of enough). I was at loss how to proceed myself, and I admit that it was more or less a coin toss. In the end, I decided to go after "Japanese diaspora" as a (rotten) compromise. No prejudice against "Nikkei people" as well, but please wait for the next RM for a couple of months if anyone insists. Duja 10:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have created an archive of the discussion prior to the second move debate because the page was at around 130 kilobytes, and I've also added a {{Controversial3}} tag to the top of the page. I know there isn't anyone who will be very happy with the results of the close, but at least it was a considered decision by a disinterested third party. My personal suggestion is for any editor who has strong feelings here to write a small (one or two paragraph) summary of his/her opinion on the naming dispute here, with no rebuttal or references other editors. I suspect that one or more of the unhappy parties is going to call for mediation at some point, so getting organized in that way would do us some good. Dekimasuが... 11:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to leave it as is, as long as the intro still includes the proper definition of Nikkei. I was going to leave the issue as is after the first move to Japanese Diaspora -- it's the move back to ethnic Japanese that I feel very strongly against. If the issue went to arbitration, the issue would be clearly in favor of Nikkei due to verification. I'm still disappointed that UE is still being called into question. Average Joe doesn't know much about Nikkei in general, so the common man wouldn't know the people nor the name. There are hundreds of ethnic groups which "Average Joe" can't name or know about -- seems like forced ignorance to prevent this article to be named properly. falsedef 11:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure 3 stubborn people arguing over an article title qualifies this as a controversial issue. I don't envy you, Duja. Good luck. Doctor Sunshine talk 20:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus clarification[edit]

The following thread segment has been copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese Guyanese; and the segment is also copied to Template talk:Japanese diaspora -- consensus clarification needed?

To put this thread in a context -- The AfD for Japanese Guyanese was based on the fact that the sole reference source from a Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs website reported that there were only two Japanese expatriates in the country. The following exchange suggests issues which may be more fully developed and resolved in this setting? --Tenmei (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete -- Unlike this article, the corollary articles focus on Issei, Nisei and Sansei whose citizenship has changed, e.g., Japanese Brazilians, Japanese Americans, Japanese Canadians, etc. Even if the number of Japanese expatriates in Guyana were larger, I'd guess that the rationale for for deleting this article and deleting it from Template:Japanese diaspora would seem credible and persuasive? --Tenmei (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Not credible to me. Expatriates like Japanese people in Hong Kong or de:Japaner in Düsseldorf are notable article topics, regardless if they don't fit Japanese American/Japanese Brazilian-centric conceptions of what defines "Japanese diaspora". (And of course, no one calls them by ridiculous names like "Japanese Chinese" or "Japanese Germans" even if they take up local citizenship --- except Wikipedia users going around inventing titles to fill up templates, without bothering to do any actual reading or research on them.) cab (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I had understood Nikkei as a cognate for Japanese diaspora; and I construed the differences found in Template:Japanese diaspora as mere anomalies. CaliforniaAliBaba's comment causes me to think that this minor issue may need consensus clarification? In WP:V terms, I note that this article' sole reference citation is a MOFA web page; and in that context, it becomes relevant that in the case of other countries, Nikkei are statistically described separately from Japanese citizens living and working abroad, e.g., Japanese and ethnic Japanese in Mexico. My view is partly informed by the approach MOFA adopted in parsing the data; but, of course, I recognize this may be disregarded in our context. The narrow issue at hand is Japanese Guyanese which may be re-introduced in future; but even in the fuzzy logic terms in which Japanese people in Hong Kong might be stretched to imply a future Japanese people in Guyana, the AfD consensus for today seems best. --Tenmei (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I propose and suggest more articles on Japanese communities in other countries not listed in the Japanese diaspora template: Japanese in Ecuador, Japanese in Germany, ethnic Japanese in Macau and Japanese in Madagascar. The Japanese settled in these countries and formed neighborhoods or cultural centers over periods of time. + Mike D 26 (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Populations in the Infobox[edit]

A discussion is posted at Template talk:Japanese ethnicity#Regions with significant populations. Please participate in the discussion. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Edits to last section[edit]

I drastically reworded the sentences there regarding the repatriation assistance payment. Debito or one of his minions really went over the top this time, stating that the Japan Times had denounced the policy, blah blah blah. The Japan Times did no such thing, and I think the editor who contributed this astounding pile of shit to this article should thank his lucky stars that the JT hasn't sued him for such a stupid comment. Debito writes a guest column -- he is not the editor of the paper and is in no way qualified to take such a stance. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger of Nikkei, Issei, Nisei, Sansei, Yonsei[edit]

Hi

Can't we merge all these duplicating/ overlaping articles Issei, Nisei, Sansei and Yonsei into the Japanese diaspora (Nikkei) page? Besides the obvious repetition, just because these terms exist for the different generations, that is no justification for separate articles. We don't have separate articles on first, second, third generation French/ German/ Chinese/ Portuguese immigrants in WP content on immigrant communities. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In support of Rui Gabriel Correia's idea, I would also note that we don't even have individual articles on the overall ideas of first generation immigrant, 1.5 generation, second generation immigrant, etc.; instead all of these closely related concepts are covered at a single immigrant generations page. cab (call) 03:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Very valid point, AliBaba. It is actually a very relevant topic - dealing with immigrant societies by generation, bringing into it acculturation, retention of old customs, integration etc. As an example, here in South Africa where I live, it has been only in the past 20 years that the Portuguese, Italian and Greek communities 'became South Africans' (though the majority still keeps their foreign passports). Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- These terms have continuing cultural and historical relevance in the national immigrant groups; and the terms are relevant in Japanese laws affecting emigrants returning from the various overseas' communities.

    Each corollary article is a combination of of unique and non-unique content.

    In some areas, the terms are considered conventional; for example, in this abstract from a Honolulu Advertiser news story about the Emperor of Japan' stop-over after a state visit to Canada, the terms Issei, Nisei Yonsei and Gosei are each expressly mentioned; and "third-generation" is presumed to be understood a reference to the Sansei of Hawaii. -- see Dan Nakaso. "Royals' visit a thrill for many older Japanese-Americans," Honolulu Advertiser (US). July 12, 2009.

    This generational naming pattern remains significant; and the continued existence of discrete articles is justified -- not because of consensus opinion among interested Wikipedia editors, but rather because of the existence of reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Tenmei (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

    • The question is not whether the terms are "conventional" or "have continuing cultural and historical relevance", but what is the best way of presenting information with a great deal of overlap. Gosei (fifth-generation Nikkei) in particular contains absolutely nothing unique except two population statistics. The unique content in these articles is also quite problematic --- like the "Demographic groups" and "History" sections, which consist of a blurb on each of three or four countries, with no indication that scholars consider such histories or groups jointly. How can you talk about "sansei history" as a coherent concept when the arrivals of Issei in Hawaii and Japanese in Brazil are separated by more than fifty years? What is there to say about "sansei history" which should be considered distinct from the individual national histories? This is just Wikipedian-invented transtemporal transnationalism. cab (call) 01:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what to make of the points you raise; but I do know this: If our Wikipedia articles are following the lead established by reliable sources, good. If our articles are somehow out in front, not good. --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Tenmei, I do hope those sources are actually treating "Issei", "Nisei", "Sansei" etc. as part of a whole. Otherwise I think our articles are not accuratly refering what they are saying. So the fact is that by merging these articles we are not going out in front of what reliable sources are saying. To adress your earlier points, no one is arguing that these concepts are not seprate concepts. We are arguing that the best way to present those concepts is in a combined article. The relevant guideline is WP:Merge. In particular it is beeing argued that these articles should be merged because there is a large overlap between them. The fact that the concepts are different is not itself enough to state that these articles should not be merged. Consider the example given at WP:Merge, which is flammable and non-flammable, two clearly distinct concepts but best treated in a single article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taemyr (talkcontribs) 15:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Tenmei. I don't know what you are opposing. It is not a vote, it is a discussion. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)